And we should ban prosthetic limbs because amputees might use them to smuggle drugs. Emotion-detection tech is a prosthetic for autistic people, and if it's banned I want consistent treatment for all disabilities.
[deleted]
Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law
11–20 of 58 posts
Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law
#12As someone from a less represented group in tech, I would want to know exactly who is classifying emotions present on the dataset. I don’t want to be mistaken as feeling angry anytime I don’t look happy or sad. There’s definitely unconscious bias to how certain people’s feelings are interpreted that lead to inaccurate perceptions.
Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law
#13Maybe certain professionally empathic people at MIT Media Lab should have used their high-tech emotion detection software to determine if Joi Ito was lying through his teeth to cover his ass by an appeal to authority when citing the names of a bunch of "very respected & well-known" people who vouched for Epstein being reformed. I still would love to know what the names of those people are, and if they're "well known", are they still "very respected"? How about a bit of empathy for his victims, huh?
https://twitter.com/RosalindPicard/status/116899800880720281...
Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law
#14How we express our emotions will change and this will be useless
You have a point. First there were words and punctuation, then the punctuation agglutinated into emoticons, now we have Unicode emojis, but peaches and eggplants are obscene, white space is significant, periods are rude, ellipses are ominous, and at-signs are sphincters.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/gene-weing...
>“Why would anyone use a period in an IM or text? Using periods in informal communications is rude.”
>“What millennials really want to know is why boomers sometimes end innocuous statements with three dots. That makes everything sound ... ominous.”
>Another millennial of my acquaintance told me something else: The casual use of an @ to mean “at,” as in, “Are you going to be @ the office?” is interpreted by millennials as a deep offense: By code, you are calling them a sphincter!
Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law
#15As a practical matter, it is not possible to prohibit the use of an algorithm, and any attempt to do so will cause more harm than anything that algorithm might possibly do.
That we're even talking about restricting tech that tells us true things about the world indicates that the level of internal contradiction in the standard worldview has reached an unacceptable level. Only a bankrupt and illegitimate philosophy needs to prop itself up with censorship and bans on true statements.
You can't hold back progress, but you do have a choice between sticking your head in the sand and facing the technological change head-on and making the most of it.
> AI Now
Oh, this is AI Now. The article makes sense now. This organization isn't a research group. It's a political advocacy organization dressed up as a research group. All they do is put an "AI" spin on the standard tech-activist political agenda. You don't have to actually read any of their papers, since the conclusion is always the same: they get to decide what technology you can use.
Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law
#16Emotion-detecting technology is software and distribution of source code is speech, ergo banning it infringes on free speech.
However it might make sense to ban its use in certain cases — like say in order to manipulate public opinion for instance.
Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law
#17Emotion-detecting technology is software and distribution of source code is speech, ergo banning it infringes on free speech. However it might make sense to ban its use in certain cases — like say in order to manipulate public opinion for instance.
There is a difference between lockpicking tutorials and breaking & entering by picking locks.
Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law
#18How we express our emotions will change and this will be useless
I am not sure this is possible without extensive training. I once had a an assignment to meet with someone I had come to despise. But my face cringed just at the thought of sitting across from this person. So before the meeting I put a fake brace on my left arm and explained that if I look mad or frustrated it was because I am in physical pain. I was able to get through the interview and get information he might have withheld had he sensed I was hostile towards him.
Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law
#19How we express our emotions will change and this will be useless
Unlikely; emotional expressions seem to be innate and hard-wired into the brain, hence the fundamental similarity between emotional expressions of groups separated for tens of thousands of years.
Re: Emotion-detecting tech should be restricted by law
#20As someone from a less represented group in tech, I would want to know exactly who is classifying emotions present on the dataset. I don’t want to be mistaken as feeling angry anytime I don’t look happy or sad. There’s definitely unconscious bias to how certain people’s feelings are interpreted that lead to inaccurate perceptions.
Note: as long as you are well represented in the dataset your representation in tech won’t matter.